Friday, February 12, 2021

Briefly Noted: The National Disgrace Of Our Politics

Yes, of course I'm referring to the latest faux impeachment. This new low in our political theater has been exacerbated by the introduction of a military occupation of our capital city into the mix of outrages to the body politic, along with the attempt to turn the the latest liberal boogey man--no less than the former president and the 75 million people who voted for him--into non-persons.

I refuse to dignify this farce by paying much attention to it--especially since it's a ploy that's once again doomed to fail. However, I would like to note two articles that strike the proper note or chord.

The first article is brief: A Monsoon of Manure. Or, if you prefer straightforward Anglo-Saxon, a blizzard of BS. The article's thesis is simple but very much to the point of the state of our public discourse:

I refuse to watch the impeachment trial as a matter of principle. To devote any attention to this charade would legitimize the corruption of our Constitution. Tuning in would be a tacit acceptance of the blizzard of BS that has buried the national discourse. At least since Donald Trump’s election in 2016, Democrats and their media allies have demanded that we view their smears and lies as high-minded pursuits of the truth. Consider:


When antifa thugs destroyed property, beat citizens and occupied public lands, they told us to believe that the group didn’t even exist.


When they argued that “whiteness” and “white privilege” are the underlying source of America’s problems, they told us to believe they were trying to heal the nation.

When they censored allegations of the Biden family’s corruption, they told us to believe they were fighting disinformation.

When they allowed Twitter mobs to destroy people who had once said something they didn’t agree with or like, they told us to believe that they were seeking justice.

And, when they demonize and silence the tens of millions of people who oppose their quest for domination, they tell us to believe they are seeking unity.

Those are just 10 examples; there are scores of others. From their position of power in Washington, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and academia, progressives continually manufacture false narratives that insult reason and decency and demand that we accept them as virtuous.

They are a most dangerous type – unserious people who are deadly serious. I refuse to submit. 

Those are five of the ten examples. Follow the link for the others.

The second article is much longer, but is historically interesting--if the ten examples of false prog narratives weren't enough to convince you of Dem indecency. I've linked to the FR republication of the article because the formatting is easier to read: The Democrat Precedent for Impeaching Trump Comes From a Racist Senator Who Wanted to Kill All Black People. The actual history of the one instance in which the Senate claimed the authority to impeach a former office holder at once impeaches the Dems--and their "legal scholar" shills--for hypocrisy as well as for poor historical scholarship. It makes powerful reading, and there's lots more at the link.

These days, even while Democrats topple the statues of Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, two men that [Allen] Thurman hated, the old dead racist has become the basis for the unconstitutional Democrat campaign to impeach President Trump after leaving office.

Thurman, who was picked by the Democrats as their nominee for Vice President, had played a major role in the sole case of the Senate deciding to impeach a public official after leaving office. The Democrat case for impeaching President Trump rests on that one case.

And on Thurman.

Legal partisans have spent weeks debating whether President Trump can be impeached after leaving office. Every single one of these analyses is heavy on rhetoric and light on precedent.

There’s a very good reason for that.


The purpose of impeachment is removing an official from office. If he quits, then he’s removed. And if he committed “heinous crimes” then a court of law could try him for those offenses.

Democrats are obsessed with removing President Trump from an office he no longer holds, but their only precedent for that is the impeachment of Belknap, Grant’s Secretary of War, who was tried and acquitted by the Senate after leaving office.

“The Senate convened a trial, and voted, as a chamber, that Mr. Belknap could be tried ‘for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office.’ The language is crystal clear, without any ambiguity,” Schumer blotivated. “The history and precedent is clear: the Senate has the power to try former officials.”

Schumer is quoting a resolution by Senator Allen Thurman, who opposed President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation and campaigned against allowing black people to vote. But that’s just the old Democrat habit of refighting the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Even while accusing President Trump of sedition, the Democrat cause is wedded to sedition.

The Democrat precedent for impeaching President Trump is a resolution put forward by a Senate Democrat who had opposed the Grant administration because he was a violent racist ...

That’s the Constitutional scholar on whose resolution the Democrat impeachment crusade rests.


Eight years before the impeachment of Belknap, Thurman was warning that there would be another civil war, leading to "a war of races in the South and the extermination of the negro".

Thurman went on to argue that black people were inferior, couldn’t be allowed to vote, and that they were little more than brutes who would be killed if they kept demanding equal rights.

This is the author of the Democrat precedent for trying President Trump after leaving office.


Every time the media trots out a legal expert to explain why President Trump can be impeached, he turns to the Belknap trial and the Thurman resolution as if they were the Constitution.

The legal experts, like Schumer, don’t discuss how the Belknap trial concluded.

There were only enough votes to impeach Secretary of War Belknap in the first place because legislators argued that Belknap had resigned to avoid impeachment. But the Senate acquitted Belknap because its members believed that a former official couldn’t actually be impeached.

Impeachment failed because 23 senators voted, “not guilty for want of jurisdiction.”


Impeaching elected officials can be political theater or serve a legitimate purpose. Impeaching former officials is never anything except political theater. That’s true of the campaign to paint the Grant administration as corrupt which helped pave the way for a Democrat revival by smearing a generation of Republican officials associated with the Grant administration as crooked thieves.

The ultimate goal of that plot was the restoration of Democrat power and of segregation.


That’s the playbook that Democrats are following in their campaign against President Trump.


Even Chief Justice Roberts, no friend of the Trump administration, has refused to preside over what he clearly doesn’t think is a legal presidential impeachment process. The same Democrats who universally voted for an unconstitutional 25th Amendment coup couldn’t care less. When you’ve got troops in the streets and control over the government, the law is what you make of it.

Those are high crimes and misdemeanors. Maybe the impeachers should impeach themselves.

Does it get any more indecent than this?


  1. In the background, the swine are causing trouble: H.R.1 and H.R. 127. Two horrible bills, perhaps with no chance of passing. But it's the thought that counts.

  2. Think that 25th Amendment stunt was/is intended to bounce Biden when the previously agreed time arrives.


  3. the passion of politics is approaching an 11 on a Spinal Tap scale of 10 and I'm not sure where we are headed. I am reminded of the scene where Khan describes his feelings towards Kirk:

    The thing is that I can't decide which role Donald Trump should some degree, I would like to see him as Khan chasing the Left, the Rinos, the Swamp around the Universe until they pay for what they've done!

    "He tasks me" indeed!

  4. Pertinent to the trial, Wokery etc., Kunstler today minces few words:
    "every move they make, every breath they take, seems calculated to *spark* a new civil war....
    Wokery is not about principle, not even a teeny-weeny bit. It’s simply about coercion and punishment, which is exactly why apologizing for supposed counter-Woke errors never avails.
    In other words, you are not dealing with a mere extreme type of moralist, but rather dedicated *sadists*.
    They’re not in it to correct injustice, but for the pleasures of vengeance alone, the *torturing* of their quarry, and the glow of power it confer."

    1. and all being dripped into Sleepy Joe's ears by others as he's comatose to what this is doing to us all.

    2. At this point we are aware that we tread on thin ice when we speak the truth.

      That being said, the glaring obvious is that straight from the Little Red Book of Saul Alinksy, what the crazed democrats are trying to do is freeze upon President Trump the crimes, sedition, treason, and misdemeanors of Barack Obama.

      It is a known fact that Barack Obama began planning his siege of America when after taking office he insitututed what he first called "Obama For America" and then "Organized For America" and after Trump took office, "Organized For Action."

      Recently the website for Organized For Action has been taken down and is basically renamed "Indivisible dot org."

      Antifa dot com goes directly to the White House. BLM donations went directly to JoeBama's campaign.

      The hideous conflagration of racism will never end as long as it serves as a smoke screen that enables Obama to get away with sedition, treason, the subversion of power and the absolute destruction of America. He has sold out as the token for the globalists and thinks nothing of exploiting his own race as a result. Furthermore, for the likes of Pelosi to rant about white supremacy as freighting the "insurrection" at the Capitol, nothing could be more racist.

      The democrats are in a state of absolute paranoia to the extreme that these people are not just a danger to themselves, but to the human race.

      Those in leadership pretending to be Catholic are actually practicing Taqiya, which makes deceit and lying a virtue.

      It is important to recognize that most of the ills unfolding can largely be traced to the Vatican. It was Archbishop Giovanni Montini who hired Saul Alinsky to teach a cadre of political leaders from Milan and elsewhere in Italy the tactics he found successful to organize a force of citizens for political gain in America.

      Pope Francis declares Islam and Christianity equal and his sealed with a kiss his "deal" with the grand imam of al-Azhar. Every step Bergoglio and Biden take lead us closer to the ultimate realization of the Alta Vendetta of the Freemasons to realize global power and to destroy Christendom and the Catholic Church.

      That there was interference from foreign nations including Italy in our election has largely been scrubbed or excused as conspiracy theory, of course, but the fact remains there is at least one signed affidavit providing substantial proof. Instead of the Battle of Lepanto this is the equivalent of Cyber Pearl Harbor.

  5. Senator Cruz has been impressive. After that awful remark Trump made about his wife, Cruz had every reason to despise the man. The senator's either risen above the occasion, or he's got a core set of values and integrity that bear watching. My sense is I'd vote for him in a blink. OTOH, Marco Rubio, sheesh.

    1. Cruz was my fallback after Walker dropped out. But he doesn't have national appeal.

      I do believe he has raised his profile since the primaries, however. I don't know if he ever became a full-throated Trump supporter, but I do think he learned from Trump that praise from the left is not a measure of success.

      Rubio, on the other hand..."sheesh" is about right.

    2. I think that's the point--Cruz appears to be one of the few GOP figures who may have observed and learned from Trump. For various reasons I'm not comfortable with him as a presidential candidate, but if he's patient he could have a major career beyond where he is now.

    3. It is not a bad idea to go to the Not So Wayback Machine and remember what precipitated Donald Trump’s remark about Heidi Cruz:

      The anti-Trump GOP super PAC Make America Awesome does some excellent work, generally affecting a “happy warrior” ethos of relishing the political fight without taking any of it too seriously. But the group’s latest ad campaign is a swing and a miss.

      Make America Awesome produced a series of Facebook ads targeting Mormon voters ahead of Tuesday’s Utah Republican presidential caucus. (The state is about 60 percent Mormon.)

      The ads assume Mormons will be repulsed by Trump’s pro-choice record, his unelectability — and his naked wife.

      Mrs. Trump is the lovely Melania, who has had a pretty decent modeling career. In 2000, she posed nude for British GQ magazine. The Make America Awesome ad reproduces the nude photo with the text “Meet Melania Trump, your next first lady. Or you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.”

      More here. well worth a read as it talks about campaign ethics and questions the insulting of many voters - not just Mormons - with tactics such as that ad, which was said to have been aimed at Mormon women:

      A woman PR flack associated with that PAC was later linked to the ad. It was obviously a Ted Cruz promotion.

      Trump did not start this kerfuffle.

    4. Thanks for that. I knew there was more to the story than Trump hater Titan was telling us. Heidi Cruz' work history is a major part of the reservations I continue to have re Ted Cruz.

    5. The super pac had an ad with the Melania pic in support of Cruz. Cruz denied authorizing the ad. Trump went low and supposedly stated he regretted doing that with Cruz.

      Meh, much ado about nothing and not new at all.

    6. Trump did go out of his way to mend fences with Cruz and Cruz also has probably been one of the most Trump-supportive of senators.

    7. The main thing I remember about Heidi Cruz was her being a mover and shaker in the Council on Foreign Relations and a named member of he task force that produced the CFR’s publication “Building a North American Community”:

      As for spilling the beans on Heidi Cruz, Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson did so in an interview:

      "Spilling the beans is quite simple when it comes to Heidi Cruz," Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson told MSNBC Steve Kornacki before rattling off her resume.

      "She is a Bush operative; she worked for the architect of NAFTA, which has killed millions of jobs in this country; she was a member on the Council on Foreign Relations who — in Sen. Cruz's own words, called a nest of snakes that seeks to undermine national sovereignty; and she's been working for Goldman Sachs, the same global bank that Ted Cruz left off of his financial disclosure," Pierson said.

      "Her entire career has been spent working against everything Ted Cruz says that he stands for," she added.

      So this was not just a matter of spilling salacious beans. Everything spilled was known publicly. Business and political philosophy. I wonder why it so easy to remember what was said about Heidi Cruz, which was material to Cruz’s election campaign, but disregard the really ugly personal thing that was done to Melania Trump…?

    8. Yes, that's spot on. As I've pointed out several times, Heidi and Ted are career long Bushies. Maybe Ted has learned from Trump, but Heidi's work history was right in Trump's policy wheelhouse, and it was something that Ted went out of his way to conceal.

      Re your last question, Titan is a confirmed Trump hater.

    9. Mark, it ain't so! I have been in some respects a strong critic of things Trump. I went to high school in the Bronx. Every one of my classmates was a mini-Trump with the big mouth and the aggressive personalities. I'm very familiar with the type. It doesn't bother me.

      Trump has been the best president in our lifetime. That he achieved any success at all is due to his drive and persistence. And his success is significant, maybe not quite Reagan (who made many more mistakes then Trump) and toppling the Soviet Union, but formidable, given the insane and treasonous opposition from everywhere, even his own party. He is indomitable.

      @Bebe. Thanks for that history lesson. I didn't know. It certainly makes Trump's response understandable--but it was still mean and below the belt. I like it that Trump never gave an inch. I don't like it that as president he spent time on Twitter going after Hollywood imbeciles and athletes. I mean, Colin K?

      Who gives a damn about him?

      Now what I just said may sound like I'm a Trump hater. I'm not. I have tremendous admiration for the man. I sure as hell couldn't have put up with the venom he had to deal with every minute of every day. I like to think I go after the Donald the way he would go after me.

      Fair is fair.

      Sign on my campus: "Black lives are Sacred."

      What do you say to that?

    10. "what I just said may sound like I'm a Trump hater."

      Actually, I didn't base the "hater" label on what you just said, but more on repeated mini-rants from the past that were even more onesidely hostile to Trump.

    11. Cruz did make the mistake of saying Trump was to blame for the Capitol riot. And he isn't a likable guy. I do admire him, but I recognize his abrasive personality.

  6. FWIW, it sounds like Trump's lawyers are totally embarrassing the Dems. What were they thinking? Dumb question, I guess.

    1. Kunstler's theory today is that,
      "Like the trial of Formosus, the trial of Mr. Trump is strictly in the service of laying out a story, *a narrative*, for validating the continued *persecution* of Woke heretics — that is, “insurrectionists,” indeed anyone not ardently on-board, with transforming the USA, into a Woke tyranny of race-and-gender hustling...."

  7. Glad we are watching today’s proceedings. The Trump team has a new and impressive member. Michael Van Der Veen. He has done a great job of skewering the hypocritical House managers - particularly Jamie Raskin - as he goes through the First Amendment argument, which Democrats have mocked as having no place in impeachment. He straightened all of them out on that issue. And used video clips very successfully, I thought. You’d have to see it to appreciate it. Will it change any minds? We’ll see. It should. He gave them a lot to think about.

    1. @Bebe; interesting that Van Der Veen is (rightly) deflecting from any questions that don't speak to the charge o "incitement" versus Senators questions AND the assumption House Managers imply that Trump didn't stop it. Very good strategy IMO.

    2. @Bebe

      I'm kinda glad you're watching, but not yet glad enough to watch myself. I'm glad to hear Trump's lawyers are doing well.


    3. Cass, they’re in the Q&A session and I am muting out the House responders. A rotten bunch. Just listening to Trump’s attorney Van Der Veen, who is a gem. I just asked my husband to hire him if I ever get in trouble…. :-)

  8. The implication by the House managers that Trump has been some sort of pied piper guru who has charismatically conned 75 million American voters into joining his cult and voting for him is absurd, inaccurate and immensely insulting. It was the other way around. All of those Deplorables were increasingly concerned about the way our country was going - particularly during the Obama years - and then along came a very unlikely person who had held the same views for some time and was willing to run for president. Faced with Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and a whole passel of Same Old, Same Old, he was refreshing, bold, smart, experienced in business (not politics or law), and he spoke our language.

    AC, having failed miserably in proving incitement, they are trying to do an end run and show that somehow he is guilty of not shutting down the violence rapidly enough and therefore is guilty by default of incitement and support for the rioters.

    Van Der Veen: This is an impeachment for incitement. Nothing else. (paraphrased)

  9. Van Der Veen is fed up with Raskin.

    “In Philadelphia, where I come from, you get caught doctoring the evidence, and it’s over. You got caught….” (paraphrased, a I applaud him!)

  10. @BebeFebruary 12, 2021 at 4:18 PM

    "The implication ... that Trump has been some sort of pied piper guru who has charismatically conned 75 million American voters into joining his cult and voting for him is absurd, inaccurate and immensely insulting. It was the other way around."

    This is a very true observation and it is worth briefly reflecting on.

    Trump was the reaction to what is wrong in this country. The disease preceded the symptoms. Part of Trump's genius was/is his ability to understand what scores of millions of Americans are thinking and feeling.

    The eGOPers (McConnell, Romney, Cheney) who think life will go back to normal if they can just dispose of the inconvenient Trump are wrong and will soon be dead wronger.

    The Dems (Pelosi, Schumer, Raskin, Schiff, AOC) who think life will go back to normal if they can just dispose of the inconvenient Trump are wrong and will soon be dead wronger.

    I love the Trump meme, "In reality they're not after me...they're after you."

    They are after us and this is not lost on the 75 Million.

    1. Well said and the GOP ought to be fully aware that President Trump restored and elevated that pitiful party to some degree of integrity and credibility in spite of the RINO Trotskyites such as Murkowski, Collins, Romney, etc.

      Of course people like former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, a Clinton shill, will resort now to bullying the GOP to convict Trump no matter what because if they don't, there will be an indelible "stain" upon the GOP.

      And that is not satire.

      Trump gave the Republican party a golden opportunity to rise to power and to salvage what was left of our country after eight devastating years of Obama. As Marjorie Taylor Greene points out, very few have the "spine" it takes to do what must be done. That's why we're in the fix we are in right now.

      After Mike Lindell's expose of The Steal, "Absolute Proof" the sad fact is, nothing will be done. And that's because anyone who can do anything about the stolen election won't do anything for one simple reason; they're all in on it.

    2. @Anonymous

      "And that's because anyone who can do anything about the stolen election won't do anything..."

      Well, there's this:

    3. "They are after us and this is not lost on the 75 Million."

      In what way is it "not lost" on them? Seeing it happen and doing nothing about it?

      IMO, America failed the most important test since civil war times. Either they voted to be plugged back into the matrix with eyes wide open - preferring cheap iphones to confronting open evil and corruption... or upon usurpation of the will of the people, chose to do nothing about it other than a couple convenient rallies and online complaint forums.

      In fact, after the first real act of genuine resistance in decades, against the actual place and people who are the source of most of our growing tyranny, we chose to disavow it and accept the enemies premise that it was somehow an embarrassing footnote to American history, or it was antifa, or whatever.... something other than a totally legitimate act of anger and resistance to remind our "betters" who they answer to.

      In other words, whichever premise you believe from above, the result is the same: we cowered into a corner.

    4. @Anonymous

      "...we cowered..."

      I disagree.

      Its still early innings. Its not over.

  11. The defense group had a number of its own video clips to run, and very effectively. They showed Raskin protesting the certification of the 2016 election - almost the first thing he did after he went to the House. They showed a number of Dem all-stars vehemently voicing FIGHT!!!!! One of the best was a 2005 clip of a very obese Jerry Nadler articulating his excellent argument against impeachment…

    Today’s defense production was a quantum leap from their first one. Van Der Veen added immensely - along with knowledge and experience, he brought great passion, appropriate anger at times - and Schoen’s performance was more crisp. Even Castor did much better. Well done. But Van Der Veen was the star...

  12. Saturday morning and they’ve just voted to subpoena witnesses - 55-45. (Ironically Cassiidy, who wanted more information, did not vote to subpoena witnesses. The five were Collins, Romney, Murkowski, Sasse and Graham, the latter adding himself to the yeses and saying that if they were going to call witnesses, there’d be a lot of witnesses. It would go on for a long time.)

    Now there will be another vote on whom to call. Not sure how this works. I’ll bet they aren’t either. Doddering Leahy, who has a bizarre role as judge and convicting juror, is lost in the woods. He’s not alone.

    1. Interesting. But it won't change the vote, and could end up being another move they'll regret. GOP can call witnesses re Trump's offer of security assistance, etc.

    2. The overall meaning of this is that the Dems know they screwed up bigtime. This is probably a Hail Mary attempt at political damage mitigation.

    3. C-Span filling time with rerun of arguments re subpoenaing witnesses. It is one witness. Rep. Jaime Beutler Herrera came out last night with having been told by Kevin McCarthy about a phone call he made to President Trump, telling him they needed help. She says she took notes on her conversation with McCarthy. So she is the one Raskin wants subpoenaed..

      I am not a lawyer, but she doesn’t seem to be the one to call about a phone call purportedly made by McCarthy to Trump. They would have to call McCarthy himself.

      Van Der Veen says the whole thing is wrong. He says it is irrelevant. That there were no words of incitement. Thus, this stuff about what happened afterward is not material.. Van Der Veen is on fire! Had strong words for Raskin and his merry band.

    4. The C-Span announcer mentioned a suggestion that this witness business could be handled by a committee so that the Senate could “return to its usual business”.

      OK, lawyers. How does that comply with the rules about impeachment?

    5. Here's a link about what Herrera would say if deposed:

      As you can see, Van Der Veen is correct that this is all ex post facto stuff. The weird part is where Herrera claims McCarthy asked Trump to "call off the riot". That's a loaded version, and as Graham indicates, any use of Herrera as a witness via deposition before a Senate committee would require cross examination as well as rebuttal witnesses or simply additional witnesses to give a fuller picture. Notes and Herrera's recollection are hearsay if the speaker of the words, McCarthy, is available--which he is. So at a minimum McCarthy should be called, too.

      The senate sets the rules. In judicial impeachments, these are usually done by a committee. However, the constitution says when presidents are involved the trial is before the senate and the CJ presides. Woops! There are a lot of problems here, not least Leahy participating as judge, witness, and juror. Due process anyone?

      Trump did, in fact, call on the crowds to knock it off. Beyond that, it's not clear to me what could have been done by the POTUS--I'm not clear on his actual ability to order, say, troops or FBI to enter the Capitol to clear it.

    6. Can you post a link, showing where Trump did, in fact, call on the crowds to knock it off?


    8. Thanx. How convenient for the impeachment crowd, that his tweet to this effect was blocked, so as to hide it's issuance from the public, so that Dems could whine, about how little he did to quell the violence.

  13. We need a universal, convenient communication system that's not subject to banning, time-outs, etc. We have one in Amber and Silver alerts, why not Presidential alerts? When the President has something to say of importantance to the country why not use the same system? It seems to work for missing kids and seniors. Bypass this Twitter nonsense.


  14. Typo: importance, not importantance.